HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 1(1), 73-84
Copyright © 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
A Chaining-Mastery, Discrimination
Training Program to Teach Little
Leaguers to Hit a Baseball
Thomas C. Simek
Lycoming College
Richard M. O'Brien
Hofstra University
One of two little league baseball teams, consisting of boys between the ages of 8
and 12, was taught to hit a baseball using a chaining-mastery program extrapolated
from the "Total Golf' (Simek & 0 'Brien, 1981) program. Following two baseline
games and a baseline measurement session, 10 of the 12 boys on the experimental
team participated in a chaining-mastery batting program, beginning with slow pitches from close to the batter and progressing to normal speed pitches from the regulation distance. Both game performance and a repeat of the baseline measures following
Game 6 showed large increases in the number of hits. The control team showed
no such increases. Following Game 6, a program of discrimination training for hitable
balls (strikes) was instituted with the experimental team using a mastery approach
to produce earlier discriminations of strikes from balls. Number of bases on balls
increased for Games 7 through 10 after remaining stable for the fIrst 6 games. For
the control team, bases on balls increased during Games 3 through 6, but remained
stable for Games 7 through 10. Batting averages revealed similar improvement for
the experimental team from a baseline of .250 to .342 for Games 3 through 6, and
.369 for Games 7 through 10, and no improvement for the control team (baseline
= .281, Games 3 through 6 = .230, Games 7 through 10 = .230). Two members
of the experimental team rejected the chaining-discrimination training program in
favor of practice in "guided positive fantasy" for batting skills, which was provided by the father of one of the boys. These two boys showed little improvement
on the dependent measures. The results suggest that a program of chaining-mastery
instruction for batting and discrimination training for pitch selection can be effective in teaching little leaguers to hit.
The success of operant approaches to teaching motor behavior has led a number
of writers (Komaki & Barnett, 1977, Martin & Hrycaiko, 1983; Rushall & PetRequests for reprints should be sent to RIchard M. O'Bnen, Department of Psychology, Hofstra
Umverslty, Hempstead, NY 11550
74
SIMEK -\~D O'BRIE'>
tinger. 1969: Rushall & Siedentop. 1972: Siedentop. 1980) to suggest a role I()'
behavior analYSIS m improving athletic performance. Withm the past 10 years
a variety of sports have been subjected to operant analysIs with feedback (Buza:& Ayllon. 1981: McKenzie & Rushall. 1974) and remforcement of speclfi(
response segments of complex athletic behavior (Komala & Barnett. 1977) a'
the most common interventions. Feedback has been a part of successful mterven
tions m golf (Simek & O'Brien. 1978). soccer (Luyben. Hansen. Hardy. Leonard.
& Romero. 1980). bowling (Kirschenbaum. Ordman. Tomarken. & Holtzbauer
1982). gyrnnasucs (Alhson & Ayllon. 1980). football (Komakl & Barnett. 19771
and tenms (Buzas & Ayllon. 1981). Response specIfication procedures have been
reported in football (Allison & Ayllon. 1980; Komaki & Barnett. 1977) and goit"
(Simek & O·Bnen. 1981 i. In addition. contingency management has been
employed to improve more global aspects of performance m baseball (Hewaw
1978) and golf (O'Brien & Simek. 1981). and profeSSIOnal baseball has been
analyzed from a reinforcement perspective (Howard, FIglerskI. & O·Bnen. 1982)
Some of the operant interventIOns m sports have focused on teachmg respon~e"
that were not previously m the orgamsm' s repertOIre (Komala & Barnett. 1977
Simek & 0 'Brien, 1981). For the baseball beginner. the art of hmmg a ball thrown
at high speed with a relatively narrow bat is not in the subject's repertOIre. Mak
ing contact WIth the ball may be VIewed as a complex discnrrunated response
that is controlled by the direction and height of the incoming pItch. The reInforcement for this chain of responses would seem to be the sight of the ball bemg
hit sharply mto the outfield. It has often been demonstrated (Kazdm. 1980: Millenson & Leslie. 1979) that response chains are most effectively taught by begmning WIth the response that IS closest to remforcement. Teachmg from a masterybased approach (Johnson & Ruskm. 1977, Keller. 1968). Simek and O'Bnen
(1981) developed a chaining program fur teachmg golf skIlls beginnmg With the
very short putt and extending backward to the tee shot. On their first round followmg instruction, nOVIces averaged 17.33 strokes betterthan a traditionally tramed
group of beginners (Simek & O·Brien. 19811. The present program extends the
chaming-rnastery approach for golf to learning how to hit a baseball To generalIZe
the golf program to hittmg both the length of the swmg and the direction of the
required perceptual tracking were decreased or SImplified. As mastery of hIttmg
was achieved at each step. the length of the swmg and distance of the stimulu~
pitch were extended until full swings at pitches from regulation distance were
mastered
Simek and O'Bnen (1981) taught golf backward-from the green to the tee-requiring that each shot be learned to a mastery cntenon of successful perfor
mance. From the perspective of Schmidt's (1975) schema model. this approach
should develop schema that allow for both the recall of appropnate response~
and the recognition of those responses by producing repetition of the correct movement at the most elementary level where that movement is hkely to be easIly pro
CHAINING-MASTERY IN BASEBALL
75
duced. The mastery training also allows for the greater variety of experience,
which Schmidt hypothesized would be most effective in developing schema.
METHOD
Subjects
Twelve members of one little league baseball team in northern central Pennsylvania
were volunteered by their coaches for a program in hitting skills. The boys ranged
in age from 8 years and 7 months to 11 years and 4 months, and varied widely
in their baseline skills. Although some of the boys were capable of making solid
contact most times at bat, others were unable to hit a pitched ball. A second team
from the same league served as a standard treatment, control group. Their data
were collected from box scores in the local newspaper at the end of the season.
Given the team assignment system in little league, this represents a matched control group. The age range was identical to the experimental team.
Procedure
Following initial contact with the 1st-year head coach of the experimental team,
the authors developed a program to shape baseball batting skills based on backward
chaining and mastery instruction. This program was extrapolated from earlier
research in golf (Simek & O'Brien, 1981).
Baseline data (times at bat, hits and walks) were collected for the first 2 games
of a 10-game season. Following the second game, measurements were taken during
a practice session for each player on the experimental team. The number of balls
hit in fair territory before six strikes were accumulated by either swinging and
missing, hitting a "foul" ball, or allowing a called strike to pass without swinging at it, was recorded. As is always the case in baseball, foul balls did not count
for the final strike. Similar measurement sessions were carried out after the sixth
and tenth games. The assistant coaches served as umpires for these sessions.
Preceding the collection of baseline data, the program was presented to the
parents of the children at a team meeting. At this time, the parents of 10 children
consented to the program to improve hitting skills. One parent, a dynamically
oriented social worker, reacted negatively to behavior modification and decided
to persue his own program of "guided positive fantasy" to improve the hitting
skills of his child. A second child, who was a close friend of the social worker's
boy, also decided to participate in this cognitive approach rather than the behavioral
program.
The actual chaining-mastery program was implemented before Game 3. By
this time, the team had won one game and lost one game and had completed 12
76
SIMEK A!\D O·BRIE1"
practices. The chaming-mastery program, for hitters IS presented m Table i In
actual practIce. each boy began at Step 2. but those who dId not attam master~
at this step were dropped back to Step 1 a~ a remedial InterventIOn \1aster~ ,,;
each step In the cham reqUIred that the subject make contact a specified number
of tImes out of a specified number of swings (as mdicated In Table I;. With [h(
exception of the first step. WhICh was limited to pitches that would have beel:
called strikes. this strategy elimmated the need for an umpire to momtor stnke~
and balls during the training sessions. The trammg program stressed hittmg ball ..
m play-foul balls were counted as swmgs. but not a~ hib.
Throughout the chaming-mastery program. the team coaches conunued to glVt:hitting instruction to all players. While the rest of the team was engaged in prac
tice with the coach. pairs of subjects would spend 20 to 30 min on the cham with
the first author and one of the assIstant coaches. Over approxunately 21!~ weeh
or 7 trials. all subjects completed the hItting cham. Progress through the cham
seemed to reflect age. experience. and practice time at home. The expenmenter~
continued to collect game by game data for the four ganles played during ihi"
penod. as well as takmg hittmg measurements similar to those at baseline be
tween the SiXth and seventh game (Posttreatment 1 meaSUTt'1
TABLE'
Baseball Hitting Chain and Mastery Cntena
Task
Cntena
I (Prestep)
Oversize wlffle ball and bat IS held over home plate
Player adJust~ bat up and down ILl hit pitches from 8
ft away No SwlOg
2
4
Oversize wlffle ball and bat held halfway from plate
\rrnmswmgl pItches from 10 fi
Oversize softball and regulauon Imle league baL MIll!swlOg at pItches from 10 fi
Same ball and bat at 15 ft
Contact on 5 consecutive pitches
(pitches must be ,~
stnke zone)
Contact on 5 of 8
swmgs
Contact on 5 of 8
swmgs
Contact on 5 of 12
5
Same ball and bat <it 22 ft
6
Same ball and bat at 30 ft
7
8
Same baJJ and bat at regulallon hnle league pltchlOg
distance \40 ft 6 m.)
Regular Imle league baseball and bat at 15 ft
9
Same ball and bat as m Step 8 at 22 ft
Step
3
~wlng~
10
Same ball and bat <is
10
Step 8 at 30 it
Contact on
swlOgs
Contact on
swmgs
Contact on
swmgs
Contact on
swmgs
Contact on
swlOgs
Contac[ on
:; of ] 2
5 01 12
5 of 15
5 of 12
5 ot 15
5 of 15
swlOg~
II
Same ball and bat as
ft6lOl
10
Step 8 at regulation distance (40
Contact on 5 ,)f 1"
CHAINING-MASTERY IN BASEBALL
77
TABLE 2
Discrimination Training Program and Mastery Criteria
Task
Step
2.
Player at plate WIthout bat. Calls pitch (strike or ball)
after pitch is in catcher's IDltt and before umpire calls
pitch.
Player at plate with bat (but no swing). Calls pitch (strike
or ball) as or just before the pitch iIDpacts the catchers
Criteria
7 out of 10 pitches
called correctly.
7 out of 10 pitches
called correctly.
mitt
3.
4.
Player at plate with bat (no swing). Pitch must be called
(strike or ball) as the ball passes over the plate.
Player at plate with bat (no swmg). Pitch must be called
(strike or ball) as the ball passes over a white marker
set 9 ft in front of the plate.
7 out of
called
7 out of
called
10 pitches
correctly.
10 pitches
correctly.
Note. In all cases, the umpire had the final decISIon as to whether a pitch was a strike or a ball.
At this time, it was noted that hitting skills for the 10 experimental subjects
had improved dramatically, but that they continued to have difficulty discriminating
strikes from balls. In fact, in game situations they routinely swung at pitches that
were so far from the strike zone as to be unhitable. The game data showed that
they had actually decreased the number of walks received per game from baseline
through treatment (see Figure 1).
In order to correct this problem a new mastery program was developed to
discriminate strikes from balls. This program is presented in Table 2. Each step
of the intervention began by having the coaches model the desired behavior. The
program was based on decreasing the time before a discrimination was made.
The subject began by correctly identifying strikes, hitable balls, or nonstrikes
after they hit the catcher's glove, and ended when the subject was able to call
out "strike" or "ball" when the pitch passed over a marker 9 feet in front of
the plate. This intervention was aimed at teaching the subject to make the strikeball discrimination early enough to initiate a swing when the pitch was within
his strike zone (over the plate, between the batter's shoulders and knees). The
program was carried out in a similar manner to the hitting chain program. Coaches
attempted to maintain a normal little league baseball pace on the pitches as they
had at the latter stages of the hitting chain. Completion of this discrimination training required five practice sessions over a 2-week period, although most players
completed it in three sessions. This intervention began prior to Game 7. Game
data continued to be kept for all players and at the end of this intervention (Le.,
following Game 10), Posttreatment 2 measure was collected in a similar manner
to the baseline and Posttreatment 1 assessments.
Throughout the study, the two boys whose parents objected to the behavioral
approach continued to take part in all regular practices and game playas determined by the coaches. The "guided positive fantasy" techniques employed by
the father of one of these boys included relaxation and success images such as,
78
SIMEK AND O'BRlE!';
. 'imagine you' re floating on a cloud:' "'unagme yourself successfully hmmg tht
ball," and so on. The voice mtonatIon observed in these settings was rather "ott
and melodic. sImilar to relaxation training or a permissive hypnotIc inductlon
These procedures were continued throughout the study. Included III the program
were eight pregame sessions in addition to other trIalS at practices.
For a variety of reasons. It is impossible to consider these two subjects as d
true control group because they were neither randomly aSSIgned nor equated fm
age (they were younger than all but one of the experimental grouP). ability. trainer.
or time spent in training. ~onetheless, they were engaged m effons to learn the
same tasks as the experimental group over the same penod of time. with the same
coaches and regimen of team practices. They received treatment specificall)
directed toward improvmg their batting skills through cognitIve or imagery trainmg
and. within the limitations of assignment. tramer, and orgarnsfmc variables. provide at least an attentIon control group. Because identical data were collected on
these subjects (as was the case for the experimental grouP). they provide a useful
opportunity to measure on-going performance as it occurred without the behavIOral
program but with mcreased attention.
The tIming of the mterventIon phase for the behaVioral group represents d
partIal, multiple basehne design with hItS and walks as the two behaviors treated
sequentially. The hitting mtervention (Treatment 1) began after two baseline
games. but discrimination between balls and strikes remained under baseline conditions until Game 7 (Treatment 2). ThIs design controls for the effects of matunty.
age, and experience unless one assumes that these factors would effect each dependent measure at exactly the same time as the interventIon did. The mclusion of
a control team provides further informatIon on the effects of maturity and prac
tice without the behavioral program
RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the number of hits and walks collected by the experimental team
and control team, baseline through Treatment 2. In Treatment 1. the chainingmastery approach was applied to hitting, but walks remained under baseline conditions. The data show a substantial increase in hits but little change in walks.
For the control team, walks increased but hits remained constant during this period.
When the discrimination training program was installed as Treatment 2. the
number of walks to the experimental team increased, although hits continued to
increase as well. The knowledgeable baseball fan will recognize that awareness
of the strike zone benefits hitting as well as leading to more walks. therefore.
the mcrease m hits in Treatment 2 IS expected. Furthermore, Treatment 2 does
not represent a return to baseline conditIons on hitting because the effect of the
intervention could not be subtracted. The performance of the control team remained constant for both hits and walks through Game 10. StatistIcal analysIs
CHAINING-MASTERY IN BASEBALL
16
79
TMAIr-;ING
BASELINE I
I
I
I
12
I
/\1
I-'ITS
/
/
8
/
\.
1\
1
• -
-
-
- Control Team
- - - Experimental Team
/
16
12
WALKS
8
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
GAMES
FIGURE 1. Total number oflnts and walks collected by the experimental and control teams
for all ten ganles.
of number of hits over the final eight games revealed a significant difference in
favor of the experimental team (M = 10.75) over the control team (M = 7.25),
t(14) = 2.57, P < .05. A similar analysis of mean number of walks over the
final four games was not significant, t(6) = .77, p > .05.
Unfortunately, the results depicted in Figure 1 are not as clear-cut as they appear. The average number of batting opportunities during Games 7 through 10
was 4.1 compared to 3.1 for Games 3 through 6. This means that there were
more opportunities to get a hit or a walk during Treatment 2. Team batting averages
for those periods suggest that this increase in opportunities is a result of treatment rather than the treatment results being an artifact of the increased opportunities. As the study progressed, the subjects simply made fewer outs, allowing
80
SI:-.tEK A:"D O'BRIE:"
more boys to come to bat in each mnmg. The team banmg average progres~e,J
from .250 at baseline to .342 during Treatment 1 and 369 during Treatment 2
Treatment 2 was marked by games with lopsided scores as the team ,"em
undefeated over these four games. The team finished m first place WIth eight \"IL
tones and two losses The standard control team finished III second place with
a record of seven wms and three losses. UnlIke the expenmental team. however
their batting average did not improve. They batted .281 m the Games I and :::
.230 for Games 3 through 6. and 230 again for Games '7 through 10
FIgure 2 presents the expenmental group's mean number of hits before coilecting SIX stnkes for measurement sessions held at baselme. between Games 2
and 3, after the chaimng-mastery hittmg program between Games 6 and 7. and
after the discnmination traimng program for pItch Identiticauon after Game to
The number of hits collected by the two control subjects and the two worst baseline
experimental subJe(;ts are also presented in thIs figure. These data were unavaIlable
on the standard treatment control team because the expenmenters had no contact
With It. These data are presented mdlvldually for each member of the expenmen·
tal team in Table 3. Repeated measures ANOVA on the means of the expenmental subjects at each occasion revealed slgmficant dlfference~. FC2. 18) = 29.14
P < 0 1 ~ewman-Keuls compansons showed that all dIfferences \"ere signlil
cant beyond the 05 level.
MEAN
HITS
BASELINE
POSTGAMESX
POSTGAME TE"
FIGURE 2 Total number of hits collected by all ellpenmental subjects. both control subJects. and the two worst experimental subjects. at measurement sessIons follOWing Games 2
6. and 10
81
CHAINING-MASTERY IN BASEBALL
TABLE 3
Number of Fair Balls Hit by Each Subject Before Collecting Six Strikes
at Each Measurement Session
Subject
Baseline
Postgame 5
Postgame 10
1
2
7
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
0
4
5
6
14
4
5
3
8
7
3
9
4
6
16
5
Total
44
66
106
Control I
Control 2
3
2
4
2
3
3
Control Total
5
6
6
9
8
13
7
3
14
10
12
19
11
Although the two subjects in the guided positive fantasy group show little improvement across time, it is also obvious from figure 2 that they started out with
less skills than the experimental group. The most meaningful comparison is probably between these two players and the two experimental group subjects with
the worst baseline performance. Neither of the latter two boys hit even one ball
in play before being counted out on six strikes at baseline. Yet, by the end of
treatment their accomplishments had far out-distanced the two subjects who received the guided positive fantasy treatment. The lack of effectiveness in the
attention-control treatment is further substantiated by the batting averages of the
two guided positive fantasy subjects for each treatment phase: .000 for baseline,
.143 for Games 3 through 6 and .111 for Games 7 through 10.
The experimental group means in Figure 2 are representative of individual
performance. Eight of the 10 subjects showed an increase in the number of hits
from Pretreatment to Posttreatment 1, and all 10 increased form Pretreatment
to Posttreatment 2. No subject decreased from Posttreatment 1 to Posttreatment
2, although two subjects hit the same number of balls in play at each of these
measurement sessions.
DISCUSSION
The present results indicate the efficacy of teaching novice baseball players to
judge the strike zone and hit the ball through a combination of discrimination
training and mastery-based instruction within a chaining model. The differential
82
SIMEK A,\D O'BRIE"
response of the two accomplishments (hits and walksj over tIme as the tW(' ill
terventions. mastery-based mstruction and discriminatIon trammg. were sequentIally mtroduced IS not easily explained through attention. goal settmg. mammy
or practIce effects.
A second team that receiVed neIther interventIon dId not demonstrate the se
quential improvement seen in the experimental team over the same number ot
games. In fact, the standard-practIce control team showed IInle improvement O\'er
the lO-game season. Sinularly. two players who chose not to partICipate In the
chammg-mastery program. but receIved extra attentIOn to battmg In an imagen
program. also showed little tmprowment.
It might be argued that the supenonty of the expenmental team over the control team simply reflected superior coaching. To support thIS position one would
have to assume that the experimental team coach shifted hIS attention to walks
at the same tIme that the behavioral program for walks was instituted, and that
the experunental team coach was sIgmficantly better than the control team coach.
The avaIlable data would support neither of those assumptions. Because the experimenters observed every practice. the first concern is easIly dismissed. The
experimental team coach devoted linle time to teachmg the strIke zone throughout
the season and certainly showed no Increase m attentIon to that end during the
discnminatIon training program to teach that skill. Because he did not mtervene
on this skill. hIS coaching could not be responsible for the lIDprovement in base!>
on balls. As to the second assumptIon. the experimental team coach was a nOVIce
who agreed to the experiment because he felt that he dId not know how to teach
hitting. The control team coach. on the other hand. was a veteran of lInle league
and was generally recognized as the league's best coach. His team had won the
league champIOnship for the previous 2 years.
It should also be noted that the first three games of the season occurred before
the behavioral program had been completed but after each team had held four
practIce and two traditIonal pregame batting practices. If the experimental team
had a better coach of hitting than the control team. these first three games show
little eVIdence of it. In fact. the control team out-hit the experimental team III
all three games. The superiority of the experimental team in hitting does not Uv
cur until that skill IS taught behaVIOrally. and the supenority of the experimental
team in walks does not occur until that skill is taught behaviorally.
It could be argued that the presence of the experimenters prc-vlded general
extra attentIOn that produced a Hawthorne effect for the experimental team. The
poor performance of the two attention-placebo control subjects who also [l'
ceived extra attention argues agamst thIS possIbility. The case for a general attentIon affect I:' even harder to defend when the ~erial effects of training are Ie
Viewed In FIgure I. The expenmenters were present. provldmg attention to all
aspects of the subjects hIttIng for the last eight games. but base!> on balls mcreased
only when a specific trammg program for that response was instItuted dunng
Games 6 through 10
CHAINING-MASTERY IN BASEBALL
83
Locke (1980) suggested instructions rather than learning as an explanation for
the effects of many operant studies in applied settings due to the large increases
in performance that are often seen in the first observation after treatment is initiated. As can be seen in Figure 1, neither intervention produced an immediate
performance improvement. This argues for change produced through learning
new responses rather than simply manipulating antecedent conditions (Le.,
instructions) .
The present results suggest that a program that combines discrimination training for pitch selection, and a mastery-chaining approach to batting skills can effectively improve the performance of little league baseball players. These techniques seem particularly effective in helping novices to develop this complex skill.
When combined with the success of chaining-mastery techniques in teaching golf
(Simek & O'Brien, 1981), the present results seem to justify further investigation of operant approaches to teaching complex athletic skills.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Portions of this article were presented at the annual meeting of the Association
for Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee, May 1982.
Thomas C. Simek (the fust author) is now at the Community Mental Health
Center at Howard Community Hospital, Kokomo, IN.
REFERENCES
Allison, M. G .. & Ayllon, T. (1980) BehaVIOral coachIng m the development of skills m football,
gymnastics and tennis Journal of Applied Behavior AnalYSIS, 13, 297-314.
Buzas, H. T , & Ayllon, T. (1981). Differenual reinforcement in teaching tenrus sktlls. Behavior
Modlficanon, 5, 372-385
Heward, W. L. (1978). Operant condiuoning of a .300 hiner" The effects of reinforcement on the
offenSive efficiency of a barnstonrung baseball team. Behavior Modification, 2, 25-39.
Howard, S. R., Figlerski, R. W., & O'Brien, R. M. (1982). The performanceofmajorleague baseball
pitchers on long-term, guaranteed contracts. In R. M. O'Brien, A. M. Dickinson, & M. Rosow
(Eds ), Industrial beha"ior modificanon: A management handbook (pp. 91-114). Elmsford, NY.
Pergamon.
Johnson, K R., & Ruskin, R. S. (1977). Behavioral instruction: An evaluanve review. Washington,
DC- American Psychological Association.
Kazdm, A E. (1980). BehaVIOr modification In applied setnngs (2nd ed.) Homewood, IL. Dorsey.
Keller, F. S. (1968). "Goodbye Teacher:· Journal of Applied Behavior AnalYSIS, 1, 78-79
Kirschenbaum, D. S., Ordman, A. M., Tomarken, A. J .. & Holtzbauer, R (1982). Effects of differential self-monitoring and level of mastery on sports performance: Brain power bowling. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 6, 335-342
Komala, J , & Barnen, F. T. (1977) A behavioral approach to coachIng football Improving play
execution of the offensive backfield on a youth football team. Journal ofApplied BehavIOr Analysis,
10, 657-664
84
SI~1EK AND O'BRlEl'
Locke, E. A. (1980) Latham versus Komala A tale of two paradigms Journal ofAppLied Psyclwlog-,
65, 16-23
Luyben. P . Hansen. R .• Hardy. 1 . Leonard. T . & Romero, 1. n98O. ~1an. BehavIOral athletic>
ImprOVing shooting accuracy on a varsiry women's soccer team Paper presented at the meetmg
of the ASSOCiation for BehaviOr AnalYSIS. Dearborn. MI
Marun. G. L . & Hrycatlc:o, D (1983) Effective behaviOral coaching What's It all about? In G
L Maron & D Hrycaiko (EiIs.), BehaVior modification and coaching pnnclples. procedures and
research (pp 5-20) Spnngfield. IL Thomas
McKenzie. T. L . & Rushall. B. S (1974) Effects of self-recordmg on anendance and performance
In a competitive sWlInmmg environment Journal of Applied BehaVIOr AnalYSIS. 7. 199-206
Millenson, JR. & LeslIe. J C (979) Principles of beJull'1Oral analysis (2nd ed! !'iew York
Macmillan
O·Bnen. R M .. & Simek. T. C. (1981. May) Contracting and chaining to unprove the performance
of a college golf team. Improvement and detenoratlon In P. Luyben (Chair). Beha.l0ral arhletlt
research. Potential and problems SymposIUm conducted at the Assoclanon for BehavIOr AnalYSIS,
Milwaukee
Rushall. B. S . & PetUnger. J. (1969) An evaluation of the effect of vanous reinforcers used amotivators In sWlnuning Research Quanerly. 40. 540-545
Rushall. B S . & Sledentop. D. (1972) The development and conrrol of behaVIOr In spon and physlcw
educatlon Phtladelplna: Lea and Feblger.
Schmidt. R. A (1975) A schema theory of discrete motor sian learrung Psyclwloglcal Rene.... 82_
225-260
Sledentop. D (1980> The management of practice behaviOr. In W F Staub (Ed.). Span psychology
an analysIS of athletlc behaVIOr tPP 49-55) Ithaca.:\Y Mouvement PublIcatIOns
Sunek. T C . & O'Hnen. R !vi (1978) Immediate auditory feedback to Improve punIng qU1cld~
PerceptIOnal and Motor Skills. 47. 1133-1134.
Sunek. T C .. & O·Bnen. R ~1 (1981) Total golf A behaVIOral approach 10 !owenng your 5wn
and getrlng more out o.fyour game Huntington. ~Y B-~10D ASSOCiates
Copyright © 2003 EBSCO Publishing